Revert "Enable Coveralls for coverage reporting"

[evankanderson]

Reverts #2342

The YAML here is not valid (wrong indentation), and this causes all testing to break.

[Vyom-Yadav]

@evankanderson @JAORMX Just a suggestion. I would pick mutation testing over simple coverage testing. Most mutation-introducing frameworks check code coverage too (with mutations as an addition). I haven't used any go mutation testing frameworks but I extensively worked with pitest java in one of the projects, and it really surpasses checking for line coverage (logic coverage > line coverage).

[evankanderson]

@evankanderson @JAORMX Just a suggestion. I would pick mutation testing over simple coverage testing. Most mutation-introducing frameworks check code coverage too (with mutations as an addition). I haven't used any go mutation testing frameworks but I extensively worked with pitest java in one of the projects, and it really surpasses checking for line coverage (logic coverage > line coverage).

I hear you. 😁

This is about having a tool to track coverage over time, rather than a tool to compute coverage.

For computing coverage for go, go cover is the standard tool which we already have hooked up. We can add more tools if they produce a standard coverage file, and coveralls should be able to report on the combined coverage result.

[Vyom-Yadav]

Cool, I have seen coveralls but never configured it myself. With mutation testing, you should get it as early as possible. Otherwise, you may end up with a pile of technical debt that consumes a lot of time.